"Electronic material type originating from Bib" vs "Electronic material type" : a display issue in the Portfolio service editor's list
In an electronic portfolio, there is a field called "Electronic material type originating from Bib" which can be overloaded by another field called "Electronic material type".
The Job "Change electronic portfolio information" allows to update the material type of portfolios into the field "Electronic material type" into a set of portfolios.
If we do so, the material type is not updated into the Portfolio service editor's list... which is confusing.
our request : when the material type of a portfolio has been updated in the field "Electronic material type", ALMA should only considare this material type and display it in the Portfolio service editor's list.
Christel Coquilleau
shared this idea
-
Dominik Bláha, SLSP
commented
We encountered this discrepancy as well. It is happening only for the CZ linked portfolios.
Everywhere else in Alma (Electronic Portfolio Advanced Search index Material Type or viewing the portfolio in Search), the correct logic is applied for these two fields "...the value in the Electronic material type parameter overrides the material type specified in the Electronic material type originating from Bib parameter." The same logic should be applied also in the Service Editor.This is an issue because the field "Electronic material type originating from Bib" is controlled by Ex Libris in the CZ and the IZs cannot change this value. Even if the value in the field is "-", you will see the "-" in the Service editor no matter what you do.